In Madrid this week, there was a tense exchange between Novak Djoković and a crowd that was not simply lively or partisan toward his opponent, Grigor Dimitrov, but at times almost inexplicably hostile to the Serb. After saving a match point and winning the second-set tiebreaker, the men’s No. 1 defiantly shouted a vulgar phrase in his native tongue. While it stands to reason that few in the Caja Mágica understood what he was saying, Djoković’s outburst – or, more specifically, the lack of response to it from chair umpire Carlos Bernardes – nevertheless reignited an ongoing tennis debate. In an international sport with a global television audience, is it fair for only those players speaking English (or, in rare cases, the language of the umpire) to get penalised for violations of the “audible obscenity” rule?

1. Players on both tours agree to abide by a code of conduct geared toward encouraging professional behaviour and promoting the integrity and positive image of tennis. In fact, the code is in effect throughout the tournament grounds, though fans generally hear about it only when it’s been breached during a match. The audible obscenity rule, which can include point penalties as well as fines of up to $5,000 per violation (up to $20,000 at slams), differs from rules about the game itself as it concerns consideration for those within earshot of the court. As the rule is general, merely stating that a player can be called for a violation if he or she uses “words commonly known and understood to be profane and uttered clearly and loudly enough to be heard,” it makes sense that it should apply equally to all players. Or, if that seems unrealistic, perhaps the powers that be will consider abandoning the rule altogether rather than maintaining a double standard.

2. While audible obscenities are hardly a major plague on the sport, it’d be a good idea for WTA, ATP, and ITF administrators to put their heads together and decide if they’re committed to the rule, what principles are behind it (for instance, is it intended to safeguard only the sensibilities of on-site spectators or those of all viewers?), and how to more fairly implement it. With the number of languages spoken by players, however, this may be easier said than done. We witnessed just how complicated – albeit entertaining – it can be in Miami, when chair umpire Marija Čičak assessed a code violation to Svetlana Kuznetsova after she shouted a word that sounded like profanity in the player’s native Russian but turned out to be the Spanish word for “court.” Still, given that umpires call the score and request fans to be “Quiet, please” in various languages, I see no reason why they can’t be asked to master a short list of choice words in the three most common linguistic clusters on tour: Romanic, Germanic, and Slavic. (Readers who think this would be an onerous task for tournament officials are welcome to suggest alternatives in the comments.) If such a change encourages more players to learn Chinese, so be it.

3. The above example aside, determining whether a player has used an obscenity is relatively straightforward. Umpires, then, have only two judgments calls to make before enforcing the rule. Was the profanity sufficiently loud so that others, including ball-kids, will have heard it? Was there anything “flagrant” or “egregious” about the utterance that would warrant the player’s being assessed with a major offense of “aggravated behaviour”? Unless the act falls under separate rules for verbal abuse or unsportsmanlike conduct, the direction in which a player is cursing – at him- or herself or in the general direction of the stands – doesn’t matter. As likely goes without saying, players are expected to comport themselves professionally, however frustrated they may be or poorly a crowd behaves.

4. Having said that, the umpire can and should warn a crowd if it gets out of hand. (For the record, I think cheering for faults and whistling or booing a player’s winners is a pretty low standard of behaviour.) Everyone, especially players, likes an active and engaged audience. But since tennis has a longstanding tradition of silence, excepting “oohs” and “aahs,” during points, there’s good reason for officials to intervene before the atmosphere gets too rowdy. Even in Fed and Davis Cup, there are limits. While all players must learn to deal with adverse conditions, no player should have to put up with deliberate distractions or disrespect from spectators. To disrespect players is, after all, to disrespect the game.

5. Call it wishful thinking, but I think that if the rule were more fairly applied, we’d see two positive developments. First, non-Anglophone players would likely clean up their on-court exclamations. Second, fans might be less inclined to make moral judgments in response to players’ colourful verbiage. What sounds unusual or awfully vulgar to me may be common or fairly benign in another language, even another dialect. Almost without exception, players curse – they’re human, like the rest of us. And, in the immortal words of Andy Murray, they do so while “trying their tits off.” By all means, apply the rule to all players; then, let’s cut them some slack. Sound fair?

Its all part of the rich tapestry of life. So long as its not a religious or ethnic obscenity directed at a specific individual ( i.e. opponent or official), I think players should be allowed to exercise their indiscretion, so to speak.

It seems the laws get bent depending on where a player stands in the tennis hierarchy.

I think that is the point. I think it applies a lot in tennis though. There are some rules for some, whilst others get away with murder.

In general I don't really care about the language players use. It's a competitive sport, nerves and tempers are bound to get frayed in the heat of battle. However, the rules, if they are there, should be fair to everyone, and they just aren't. Andy (or a whole bunch of other players I could mention) would never get away with swearing at an opponent over the net. He certainly would never get away with using an obscenity at a crowd, if we are to assume Djokovic did. The audible obscenity rule, in my view, should either be applied fairly, to all players regardless ranking and standing in the game, or it should be done away with altogether.

Would Djokovic use that particular insult? Well, I have to be honest, I didn't hear it, but my gut instinct is yes, I think he probably would. Djokovic can be very nice and very sporting, don't get me wrong. In general I like him. However, lately I do think he has shown signs of becoming quite smarmy and I also get a sense that he thinks he's become bigger than the game and can do what he likes. I do think he might, in the heat of battle, get carried away and go too far.

I still don't understand for one moment why people are making such a ridiculous fuss about the crowd during Djokovic's encounter with Dimitrov the other night. I didn't think they were bad, they just backed Dimitrov! Djokovic tried it on a couple of times, questioning balls that were completely, utterly and absolutely in and a blind man could have seen it. The crowd objected to what they considered (rightly or wrongly) to be gamesmanship. The thing is, Djokovic might have enjoyed questioning, complete with the jolly little laugh he had with the umpire, but it was patently obvious that he was trying to slow Dimitrov down.

I'm not suggesting the crowd was right to boo, I never like to see that used to anyone, but I think they had a right to make their views on Djokovic's behaviour known. Other than that, the crowd just got caught up in the performance Dimitrov put on and supported him, just as the crowd at the USO final backed Djokovic to get him back into the match, and then got behind Andy again at the start of the fifth set. The crowd in Madrid were no worse than that and they were better than the louts who booed and jeered Andy at the O2 before a ball had even been struck against Federer.

The crowd was clearly supporting dimi. Some crowds just love an underdog/upset and there probably was something there about him beating Nadal. However I do think Novaks reaction was wrong and he plays enough Davis Cup to be used to a hostile crowd. Andy has had (to my knowledge ) two incidents similar. One at the French open and the other at the O2 in front of what should not have been a hostile crowd. I the first instance he laughed at it and about it and in the second didn't rise to or react to it (other than maybe to loose the match) and wouldn't be drawn about it afterwards. Who is the more professional and mature.

It seems the laws get bent depending on where a player stands in the tennis hierarchy.

Yep. Same in any sport. Officials are too intimidated by top players/coaches. All the talk in sports of last couple of days - Ferguson - is a great example of this - been bullying officials for years and gets away with murder.

I still don't understand for one moment why people are making such a ridiculous fuss about the crowd during Djokovic's encounter with Dimitrov the other night. I didn't think they were bad, they just backed Dimitrov! Djokovic tried it on a couple of times, questioning balls that were completely, utterly and absolutely in and a blind man could have seen it. The crowd objected to what they considered (rightly or wrongly) to be gamesmanship. The thing is, Djokovic might have enjoyed questioning, complete with the jolly little laugh he had with the umpire, but it was patently obvious that he was trying to slow Dimitrov down.

They backed Dimitrov for a reason. Half the times they can't be even bothered to show up.

Re Tessie's comment about Andy's awful match against Federer at the O2 in November 2012. I was there. I was sitting quite close to the anti-Murray crowd. It was intimidating to say the least, and I am quite sure he lost this match because of the crowd reaction. I have been to the O2 every year so far, but never again. I will never risk seeing Murray treated like this by a mob on his home turf again. It was as memorably dreadful as his win over Djokovic at the Olympics was one to treasure. I was there for that one too.